Change in language classroom

culture: the impact of a selfadaptive model of LTE

To a great extent within classrooms, the language used byteachers and students determines what is learned and howlearning takes place. Wilkinson & Silliman, 2000, p. 337.Is there a language classroom culture?Breen (2001) proposes that the classroom be interpreted as a culture. In hisdescription, classroom culture needs to be construed by all participants as a socialexercise, through the inclusion and active participation of all. However, in practicalterms, that might not be the case. Research in education and language education hasidentified a strong culture characteristic of traditionally organized classrooms, andpointed out that it is not conducive to learning (Palincsar, Brown, & Campione, 1994).Among the features of such culture is a mode of discourse classified as univocal(Wertsch, 1998)authoritative teacher dominated discourse; the use of inauthenticquestions by the teacher (Nystrand, 1997)questions to which the teacher has a prespecified answer; and unbalanced power relations between teacher and learnerstheteacher as absolute authority.These features contribute to classroom dynamics which preclude assigning students ameaningful epistemic role, understood as a role the students themselves can value(Nystrand, 1997). Traditional classroom culture is in accord with a view of teachingas the transmission of knowledge from teacher to students, which is one of the pillarsof the knowledge transfer paradigm. The rationale behind this mainstream view is thateducation is largely a matter of apprenticing learners in the acquisition of knowledge,defined as a body of justified beliefs, through a process of memorization.

In Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), for the most part, thedynamics emerging from this culture facilitate the development of routines; stagedperformance devoid of authentic engagement, focussed exclusively on outcomes,neglecting attention to the practices themselvesinauthentic interaction.Despite the advancements in education in the past 40 years, specially regardingcritical pedagogy, and all the criticism these features have sustained over decades,research points out the remarkable resistance to change exhibited by traditionalclassroom culture (Wertsch, 1998). In contemporary teacher education, it is notuncommon to view the endurance of classroom culture as a by-product of teachersexperiences as students, often called apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 2002).From this perspective, teachers reproduce in their classrooms the practices to whichthey were exposed during their entire lives as students.While in language teacher education (LTE), at least in regard to TESOL,apprenticeship of observation is traditionally thought of in regard to the periodantecedent to teacher preparation, an examination of the practices commonlyobserved in mainstream LTE (see for example Brandt, 2006) suggests that languageteacher preparation courses are in accord with traditional classroom culturemainstream LTE classrooms share a culture similar to traditional language classroomculture.How to promote change in language classroom culture?One seemingly logical step in the direction of promoting change to languageclassroom culture is to create opportunities for novice teachers to experience aclassroom culture based on features which differ from those to which they have beenexposed previously to becoming involved in LTE, before they start teaching.2

If this were the case, novices would be exposed to an alternative classroom culturethey could compare to traditional classroom culture. Change can be promoted throughorganising the LTE classroom in the same way the novices are expected to organisetheir own classrooms when they begin their teaching careers. If the features of theLTE classroom culture are opposed to those seen in traditional classroom culture, andthe novices experience these alternative features, they might be apprenticed in thenew classroom culture, bring it over to their own classrooms when they start teaching,and promote changes to language classroom culture.In an attempt to explore this idea and investigate whether or not such an enterprisecould be carried out successfully at experimental level, a model of LTE wasconstructed, based on features opposed to univocal discourse, inauthentic interaction,and unbalanced power relations between teacher and learners.The model was implemented with a group of in-service teachers in Brazil, through aprofessional development course, henceforth LTE course. Classroom observationsbefore and after the teachers took part in the LTE course, among other sets of data,show that the participating teachers promoted changes to their classroom culture andthat their students responded positively to these changes.The Self-Adaptive Model of LTEIn order to account for contextual factors, self-adaptability was one of the aimspursued in the development of the model. This is realised in the way the modelpermits course facilitators and participants to co-construct the content of anyinstantiation of the model and tailor the course to suit the participants and theircontexts.

This is achieved through the implementation of the three guiding principles of themodel: complementarity, dynamism, and self-adaptation, which in turn lead to thedevelopment of a set of necessary conditions, described here as authenticity,meaningful roles for learners, balance of power relations between teacher and learnersand self-regulation or homeostasis. These principles and conditions are in accord withan alternative education paradigm to that of knowledge transferthe knowledgeconstruction paradigm.ComplementarityAccording to the principle of complementarity, teachers and learners are thepossessors of distinct, yet equally important, kinds of knowledge, which need to becombined so that these can be activated. In regard to the teaching/learning processes,each of these kinds of knowledge is inert in the absence of the other. This entails thatthese two kinds of knowledge are complementary.Without the participation of the learners, the teachers discourse is characterized as astatic monologue, which can become an empty recitation of explanations. In thismode of discourse, univocal, the ideas put forward by the speaker coincide with theideas of those who listen, or are accepted unconditionally by them. As a result, thediscourse is not renewed, and the ideas stagnate.With the learners authentic participation, on the other hand, teachers are constantlyreviewing their explanations, producing new accounts, considering the learnersproposition and incorporating what seems helpful, characterising classroom discourseas dialogic, a mode of discourse believed to serve the generation of new ideas(Wertsch, 1998). Through the dynamics which emerge from the types of interactionfostered by dialogic discourse, teachers can engage with their own teaching, learn4

more about what they teach and how to teach ita process of continuousdevelopment (teacher scholarship).In the case of the LTE course, the facilitators knowledge is understood as being of ageneral (theoretical) kindknowing about teaching and learning in general, and thatof the participants is seen as a specific (practical) kindknowing about teaching andlearning in their particular case. The amalgam of both general and specific knowledgeleads to the construction of complex descriptions of language teaching and learningby the facilitator and participants.DynamismAccording to the principle of dynamism, knowledge construction is seen as theprocess of understanding novel information. To achieve understanding, individualscall upon their existing knowledge to analyse new information, build hypotheses,investigate their validity, and formulate possible conclusions.This can lead to both the construction of new knowledge on the basis of theinformation being processed, and the re-evaluation and transformation of theindividuals knowledge base, simultaneously. Existing knowledge is transformed as itincorporates fresh knowledgeknowledge is dynamic, or ever-changing. Throughsocial engagement, individuals can constantly update and reshape their knowledge.Dynamism, therefore, captures the way both kinds of knowledge, the teachers and thelearners knowledge, have the potential to transform one another. As teacher andlearners interact, if each shares their respective kinds of knowledge, both can developnew knowledge and transform what they already know.Self-adaptation5

It is understood in the context of the model that learning takes place through authenticparticipation in classroom activities, and that participants can transform such activitiesas a result of their participation (Vygotsky, 1986). This is in accord with the idea oflearning through imitation, as described by Tomasello (1999)the imitator recreatesthe activity, not merely reproduces it.Given that teaching and learning take place under a multitude of conditions, combinedin unique ways in each particular context, it is reasonable to believe that the changesin classroom activities promoted by each group of participants would not be unvaried.To accommodate these changes, it is necessary that classroom activities beconstructed flexibly, in a way that these can be responsive to the context in which theyare implemented.The impact of the guiding principlesImplementing the idea of complementarity in the classroom leads to a change in themode of discourse. If the teachers and the learners knowledge activate one another,classroom discourse cannot be univocal and has to accommodate a plurality of voicesand ideasdialogic discourse. This is reinforced by the idea of dynamism. Sinceknowledge is dynamic, there can be no set solution to any given problem, thereforeevery proposition has to be considered on its own merits instead of evaluated on thebasis of whether or not it agrees with existing knowledge.In this case, learners are assigned meaningful epistemic roles, as activators of theteachers knowledge and active contributors to the process of knowledge construction.This, in turn, calls for balanced power relations between teacher and learners, so thatlearners are free to contribute and their contributions have the same status of those ofthe teacher.6

From such a context emanates authentic interactions which ultimately regulate whattakes place in the classroomself-adaptation.The implementation of the modelThirteen teachers participated in this project and four took the LTE course tocompletion. The course was held at a State language school in Joao Pessoa, Brazil,from February to June 2010. Participants met once a week for a 2-hour workshop inwhich the principles of the Self-Adaptive Model were implemented. Theworkshops were based on collaborative sharing of ideas and opendiscussions aimed at the construction of solutions to participantsperceived problems.The content of the course was constructed by the group of teachers and the facilitatorat the beginning of the course, based on information about prospective participantsexpectations in relation to content, collected through a survey questionnaire filled outby 22 teachers; and Shulmans (1987) theoretical framework, whichdivides teacher knowledge into a set of intertwined domains ofknowledge (content knowledge; general pedagogical knowledge;pedagogical content knowledge; knowledge of learners; knowledgeof curriculum, knowledge of educational ends; knowledge ofeducational context), proposed by the facilitator.Through open discussions, participants decided on: a) whichdomains best represented the participants expectations and interests; b) whichdomains were relevant to participants; c) the feasibility of addressing each chosendomain in the course; and d) what should be part of each of the chosen domains, thusconstructing the course content.7

The participating teachers decided that the core content of the

course should comprise the general pedagogical knowledge andpedagogical content

knowledge,

understood respectively

as

knowing how teaching and learning occurs, and knowing how theteaching and learning of English occurs in the case of speakers ofother languages.It was decided to briefly explore content knowledge, understood asknowledge about English, as the initial topic, and to investigatewhat the domain would include, since the participants thought thatthe understanding of this domain held by the course facilitator andthemselves would filter through the discussions on pedagogicalcontent knowledge.The domains of knowledge of learners, curriculum, educationalenterprise and educational context were identified as the areas ofexpertise of the participants. It was decided that their expertise inthese domains should be used to ground the discussions in thecourse, rather than be the foci of discussions.The remaining domains: knowledge of discourse, field-specific andsupport knowledge were seen as subsidiary. The group decided thatthe development of these domains would be a consequence of thesharing of ideas, and that deeper knowledge would have to beconstructed through further studies in specific areas and throughpersonal experience.

MethodologyThe project followed a case study approach to research. Theparticipating teachers were observed in their classrooms prior to theintroduction of the Self-Adaptive Model to them (stage 1), followingan observations questionnaire designed to focus the observersattention on relevant classroom features.Subsequently to their commencement in the LTE course, theparticipants were observed in other occasions (stage 2), followingthe same observation system, starting approximately 9 weeks afterthe first observation was conducted.The data collected in stage 1 was compared with data collected instage two to establish whether or not there were changes inclassroom culture apparent to the observer. The data was thenreviewed by two independent assessors, for the purpose oftriangulating the researchers results.Data collectionThe data collected include DVD footage of classroom observations, observationquestionnaires filled out by the researcher during classroom observations, transcriptsof the lessons observed, DVD footage of interviews with participating teachers andsome of their students, excerpts from the transcriptions of interviews, review of thefootage from classroom observations by independent assessors, and reviewquestionnaires filled out by assessors during the review of classroom footage.Results

The observations prior to the commencement of the LTE course revealed a set offeatures shared by the three classrooms, which were in accord with traditionallyorganized language classroom culture: the teachers talked for most of the time;student participation was minimal; the teachers often answered their own questions;students were expected to recite formulaic answers which matched the teachersanswer key; the teachers tightly controlled classroom interactions.Three months after the teachers commenced the LTE course, classroom observationsshowed a completely different picture: the teachers gave much more time for studentsto talk and in some cases the proportions were reversedstudents spoke for most ofthe time; students participation improved; the teachers no longer had to answer theirown questions; the students were expected to share their thoughts; the teachersallowed emergent classroom interactions.DiscussionThe data collected during the implementation show that theparticipating teachers made changes to their classroom culture inaccord with the principles informing the model, that their studentsresponded to these changes, and that the students behaviour alsochanged. The evidence also shows that each of the participatingteachers was able to construct and implement a different approach,which in turn led to the emergence of classroom dynamics whichwere specific to their respective contexts. These findings supportthe self-adaptability of the model proposed here.Both the change in the teachers behaviour and the behaviour itselfare attributed to the teachers participation in the LTE course in10

which the model was implemented. This link can be made in theabsence of other identifiable factors which could explain theoccurrence of dissimilar behaviour observed in these classroomsbetween the first and subsequent observations, and also due to theways in which teachers classroom behaviour observed in theprocess of the implementation conformed to aspects of the model.ConclusionOne of the most significant propositions in this study is that LTEclassrooms and language classrooms be analogously organized. Thisis seen as a crucial contributor to successful teacher education, as itis an essential condition for apprenticeship, which is understood asthe catalyst of learning.Based on the results of this study, it is clear that teachersparticipation in the LTE course had an impact on promoting changesto classroom culture. This can be explained as the result of anapprenticeship promoted through the LTE course: the fact that theteachers experienced the principles and features of the model asthese were highlighted in the LTE course allowed them to replicatethe LTE classroom culture in their own classrooms.The following appendices show sample transcripts with studentsutterances marked in bold. Appendix one shows a sample transcriptfrom a low proficiency class in stage 1, prior to the implementationof the Self-Adaptive Model. Appendix 2 shows a sample transcript of

11

the same classroom in stage 2, after the implementation of the

model. Appendix 3 shows a sample of a high proficiency classroomin stage 2.

12

Appendix 1: sample transcript of a lesson in a low proficiency

classroom in stage 1Teacher:

Last week I gave you this print out for you to answer the questions. However,some people did not understand the exercise. So I am going to comment onthe questions to see if you can follow. Of course I am not going to answerevery single question, but according to my comments, you will be able tofigure if the answers you gave to other questions are correct or incorrect. I amgoing to comment on the first five questions of each block. In the first block,there are some phrases, and below each phrase you have instructions aboutwhat you need to do with the phrase, OK? So the first phrase is in affirmativeform, and between brackets it is indicated that you should transform thephrase into a negative. Well, as you already know, where there is the verb tobe we work with the verb to be. Then there is no reason to worry, because theverb to be will be used to state, will be used to negate and will be usedinterrogate. So this phrase here is in affirmative form, and I want to transformit into a negative form. How do I do this?

Students:

silent

The teacher starts writing on the board.

Teacher:

I thought everyone would get this exercise right

The teacher writes on the board: There are cakes in the kitchen, which is the first phrase of thefirst block of exercises on the students print out.Teacher:

This phrase here (The teacher points at the phrase written on the board); is itin affirmative, interrogative, or negative form?

13

Students:

hesitate

Teacher:

Ah? It is in form A A

Students:

Affirmative

Teacher:

Affirmative! And the exercise requires you to transform this phrase into anegation, isnt it so?

Students:

Silent

Teacher:

This phrase here, it has the verb to be; and we already learned that there + tobe means there exists, isnt it so?

Students:

Silent

Teacher:

So, if I have the verb to be here, how do I transform this phrase into anegation?

Students:

Silent

Teacher:

Come on guys, how do I transform this into a negation?

Students:

Silent

The teacher then writes not on the board, directly above are in the phrase: There are cakes inthe kitchenTeacher:

I just need to write not. Once this is done, the phrase ceases to state and startsto negate, isnt it so?

Students:

Silent

Teacher:

Here, despite the fact that it says: negative form, what did some students do?They placed the verb to be at the beginning of the phrase. If it says here thatyou should change the phrase into a negative, and the student changes it into

14

a question, it can only be for lack of attention! Was the question difficult? No,it was not difficult! It was the lack of attention which caused the problemhere.1Teacher:In this phrase hereThe teacher writes the phrase on the board in English as she speaksTeacher:

She washes her clothes every day. It is also asked that this be transformedinto a negation. Look, the majority got this one right, but there were peoplewho put the verb to be in this phrase. Guys, we have already studied this, youalready know this, you are third year and you know that if the verb to be doesnot appear in the phrase, I will not work with the verb to be. I will only workwith the verb to be when it appears in the phrase. It did not appear; I willhave to resort to another element. We have also learned that if I have a verbwith es I will use does.

The teacher writes the auxiliary does on the board.

Teacher:

Well, if I have es in the verb; if I have here third person singular, in whichtense is the verb?

A student:

Hesitates then says: Present

The teacher complements the students answer, emphasizing that it was incomplete and thatthe correct answer is simple present, as she stresses the word simple.Teacher:

It is in simple present

The teacher points at the verb wash in the phrase she washes her clothes every day written onthe board.

1 In the printout given to students, all the instructions for all the exercises arewritten in Portuguese.

15

Teacher:

The verb wash; it is a verb which is not an auxiliary verb, it does not have thesame strength as the verb to be. I cannot make a question or a negation withthis verb. It is not an auxiliary. Then I will have to get assistance from anauxiliary verb. Which one might it be? Might be?

Students:

Hesitate and then say: does 2

Teacher: Does! This does, to transform this phrase into a negation, in which position in thestage will I place it?

2 The word does is already written on the board and was mentioned by theteacher a little earlier.16

Appendix 2: sample transcript of a lesson in the same classroom in

stage 2Teacher:

In previous lessons, in the two or three previous lessons, what did we see exactly?Who remembers?

A student:

Pronouns

Teacher:

Pronouns? What pronouns?

Students:

Subject

Teacher:

Subject pronoun and what other type of pronouns?

Students:

Object

Teacher:

Who remembers the subject pronoun and object pronoun? How do we use one andhow do we use the other one?

Students:

Silent

Teacher:

In what situation in a phrase, in what function in a phrase do I use subject pronoun?

A student:

In subject function

Teacher:

Yes, but in what position will it be in a phrase?

Students speak simultaneously, producing two main answers

Students:

At the beginning of a phrase

Students:

Before the verb

Teacher:

What about the object pronoun?

Students speak simultaneously, producing three answers

Students:

It is the complement

17

Students:

Direct object

Students:

Indirect object

Teacher:

It is a complement which can be a direct object or indirect object. Complement of

what?

Students:

Of the verbTeacher: That is it; complement of the verb. In the last class I asked you to research,in your other previous course books, the subject pronouns and object pronouns. Wereany of you curious? Did anyone remember to look? No? Nobody? Look guys,remember that I cannot do anything on my own; you need to participate. Dont waitfor me to bring everything to class, because if you come here with the contentroughly understood, our lesson becomes much easier. But lets go on. Whoremembers which are the subject pronouns?]

Students:

I, you, he

18

Appendix 3: sample transcript of a lesson in another, higher

proficiency, classroom in stage 2Student 1:

About a week ago I was reading some articles about India, which pictured Indiaas the Holy country. I read it in a magazine, ah, super inters... How do youpronounce this: super interessante?

Teacher:

The magazine?

Student:

Yes

Teacher:

Super interesting, but you can say it in Portuguese, because it is a proper noun.

Student 1:

Ok. Super Interessante. So I found out that 70% of India is rural area and only30% is urban area.

A student:

So most of it is farm?

Student 1:

Yes, Most of it, 70%. So in this part, 70 %, you can see a very traditional life.How is a very traditional life? For example, couples

Teacher: Couples (other students also help saying the word out loud)Student 1:

Couples cant, in Valentines Day, go out together, walk together or kissing andhugging each other, because...

Teacher:

Because it is not allowed?

Student 1:

No, it is not allowed, in this 70 %, because the Police look at him... look at themand say: no, you are going to jail. Because it is denied.